Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory FIR Registration for Cognizable Offences

An appeal before the SC was prefered challenging the judgment of High Court of Gujarat, which had earlier dismissed the appellant's plea seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any further First Information Reports (FIRs) against him for actions undertaken during his tenure as a public servant, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Background:
The appellant, Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, was the Collector of Kachchh District, Gujarat, from 2003 to 2006. FIRs were filed against him with regard to the alleged irregularities in land allotment orders made during his term of office, the first FIR being filed in 2010 on the allegations of abuse of official position, corrupt practices, and financial irregularities in government land allotments.

The appellant had been under judicial custody in relation to these cases, and the trials were going on. Being aggrieved by the registration of successive and multiple FIRs, the appellant had moved the High Court of Gujarat with a writ of mandamus to order respondent authorities to make a preliminary inquiry prior to registering any further FIR against him. He argued that the subsequent FIRs, especially after he had obtained bail in earlier cases, infringed his basic rights, especially his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and were filed with a collateral purpose to harass him. The High Court rejected his petition, and hence the current appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court reaffirmed the established legal stance derived in Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Click to Download), affirming that the registration of an FIR is obligatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), if information received provides evidence of the cognizance of a cognizable offense. However, as per the Lalita Kumari (supra) judgment the exception of having preliminary inquiry is required to be only in limited categories of cases, such as family disputes, commercial matters, and medical negligence cases.

The Apex Court made it clear that a preliminary inquiry is only available when the facts do not prima facie indicate a cognizable offence and is needed only to determine if such an offence is disclosed. Where the accusations clearly go to indicate a cognizable offence, such as corruption and abuse of official position, police authorities have no option to refuse registration of an FIR.

Supreme Court held that "The decision in Lalita Kumari (supra) does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR. Rather, it reaffirms the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence."

Other Observations by the Court:

The registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

A preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offense is disclosed if the initial information does not clearly indicate one.

Appellant has reasonable legal recourse options, such as the right to petition for quashing of baseless FIRs under Section 482 CrPC and the right to seek bail.

The Apex Court held that issuing a blanket direction for a preliminary inquiry in all the cases where the appellant is involved would be against the statutory framework of the CrPC and would be judicial overreach. The Court further observed that for cognizable offences, the CrPC does not leave any room for an accused to explain before the FIR can be registered.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal made by the retired IAS officer, Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, thus affirming the ruling of the High Court of Gujarat. However, the Court noted that the appellant has sufficient remedies given to him in law, including the right to file for quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, the right to file for bails, and even the right to challenge illegal actions subject to the proper procedure.

Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Between: PRADEEP NIRANKARNATH VS STATE OF GUJARATH & ORS 2025 INSC 350
Date of Judgment: 17-03-2025